Clients As a Resource in Energy Education

1. Clients As a Resource in Energy Education Jackie Berger David Carroll 2004 Affordable Comfort April 28, 2004

2. Purpose of Session • Conceptual – What is the realistic potential associated with energy education? • Evaluative – What have we found in our program evaluations? • Exploratory – Can we improve measurement of energy education impacts and the delivery of energy education at the same time?

3. Organization of Session • PART 1 – Framework – David – 15 minutes • PART 2 – Findings – Jackie – 50 minutes • PART 3 – Instrument – David – 15 minutes • WRAP-UP – Feedback – 15 minutes ASK QUESTIONS ANY TIME

4. Status of Energy Education • New funds are being invested in low-income usage reduction programs • Energy education is an important part of many new and existing programs • Many field staff still doubt the potential for energy education • Evaluations find program barriers and mixed results

5. Energy Education Assumptions • Behavioral changes can reduce energy usage and energy bills • We can teach individuals how to change behavior • We can motivate individuals to change behavior • We can identify the changes that will lower bills and provide reinforcement

6. Evidence of Behavior Impacts • National Statistics - RECS • 1997 compared to 2001 • 22% increase in prices • 8% reduction in heating degree days • 16% reduction in energy consumption • Change by Income Group • Lowest income group = 16% • Other income groups = 15%, 20%, 17%

7. Evidence (continued) • NMPC Power Partnerships – Evaluation showed 10% incremental gas savings and 3% incremental electric savings from education • Ohio – PIPP clients were alert to potential savings on summer bills • California – 12% reduction in electricity usage resulting from a number of initiatives in 2000-2001

8. Other Ways Education Works • Awareness of measures • Support of measures • Improvement of auditor diagnostics

9. Evaluation Information Objectives • Are education procedures followed? • What are the barriers to following prescribed procedures? • How can procedures be improved? • How can implementation be improved? • What is the impact of education?

10. Evaluation Activities • Interviews with program managers and designers • Interviews with service providers • Observation of education training • Observation in the field • Client interviews • Impact analysis

11. NJ Comfort PartnersProgram Background • Comprehensive usage reduction program managed by 7 electric and gas utilities • Addresses electric, gas, and fuel oil usage • Protocols developed from best practices of previous individual utility programs • 98% of homes served by one large contractor • Households under 175% of poverty are eligible

12. NJ Comfort PartnersEducation Protocols • Partnership model • Initiate partnership when first contact is made • Explain the program • Confirm the partnership in the home • Benefits to each partner • Responsibilities of each partner • Sign the partnership agreement form • Information gathering • Family’s needs, wants, behaviors • Review of customer’s bills

13. NJ Comfort PartnersEducation Protocols (continued) • House tour • Identify measure installation opportunities • Determine usage habits • Install qualifying measures • Calculate current costs and projected costs with energy savings • Review options for measures and actions • Make decisions and complete Partnership Agreement Action Plan • Follow up on responsibilities

14. NJ Comfort PartnersEducation Materials • Education Notebook and Note cards • Partnership Agreement Form • Action Plan

15. NJ Comfort PartnersBarriers • New program • Utilities ordered to implement program in two months • Education training could not be scheduled immediately • Uncertainty of future program administration • Training funds are limited

16. NJ Comfort PartnersObservation Findings • Partnership agreement • Auditors did not consistently explain the partnership agreement at the beginning of the visit • Many did not mention a partnership until the end of the visit • Energy education notebook • Many did not use at all

17. NJ Comfort PartnersObservation Findings • Explain what visit would entail • Many did not describe what would be done. • Review and explain bills • Auditors did not consistently review bills. • Co-developing an action plan • Auditors did not consistently work with customers to determine actions the customer was willing to take to reduce usage

18. NJ Comfort PartnersObservation Findings • Co-developing an action plan • Many auditors did a good job explaining work and potential actions during walkthrough • Some auditors did not recommend actions during the walkthrough • Some auditors did not tailor recommendations to the customer’s behavior and home • Auditors did not consistently reinforce recommended actions at the end of the visit • Some auditors did not record actions that the customers agreed to

19. NJ Comfort PartnersObservation Findings • Co-developing an action plan • Most auditors did not use the action form • Auditors did not provide estimates of cost savings • Summary and Review • Auditors did not consistently review work done in the home, and actions that customer had committed to. • Auditors did not reinforce the importance of the customer’s role in the partnership and in reducing energy usage

20. NJ Comfort PartnersClient Interview Findings • Understanding of the Program

21. NJ Comfort PartnersClient Interview Findings • Customer Motivation

22. NJ Comfort PartnersClient Interview Findings • Education Provided

23. NJ Comfort PartnersClient Interview Findings • Recall of Energy Saving Actions

24. NJ Comfort PartnersClient Interview Findings • Reduced End Uses

25. NJ Comfort PartnersClient Interview Findings • Percent with actions expected to reduce energy use

26. NJ Comfort PartnersSummary • Well-developed education protocols • Excellent education materials • Many barriers to implementation • Inconsistent implementation • Education not tailored to individual client • Reflected in client interviews • Improvement recently seen

27. Ohio Electric Partnership Program Background • Electric usage reduction program managed by Ohio Office of Energy Efficiency • 18 authorized providers in first year • Reduced to 9 in second year • Providers are CBO’s and one private contractor • Some agencies have several sub-agencies • Electric PIPP customers are targeted for service delivery

28. Ohio Electric Partnership Program Background • OEE receives electric usage data from utilities each quarter • Based on usage thresholds, they target clients for: • High use baseload services (>8,000 kWh baseload usage) • Moderate use baseload services (4,000-6,000 kWh baseload usage) • Weatherization services (>8,000 kWh heating or cooling usage)

29. Ohio Electric Partnership Program Background • Auditor uses a PDA to collect information on all electric uses in the home • Auditor matches total use calculated in home with usage on customer’s bills • Auditor identifies cost-effective measures for installation • Measures include refrigerators, freezers, light bulbs, aerators, showerheads, water heater wraps • Fuel switches and custom measures recently introduced

30. Ohio Electric Partnership Education Protocols • Introduction • Purpose of visit • Program overview and steps • Partnership agreement • Usage analysis • Review customer’s bill • Explain baseload versus heating/cooling usage

31. Ohio Electric Partnership Education Protocols • Energy tour • Review biggest electric uses • Estimate costs per appliance • List suggested actions • Action plan • Review list of suggested actions • Obtain commitment for 3-5 actions • Complete energy savings actions plan • Reinforce consequences of each action

32. Ohio Electric Partnership Education Protocols • Conclusion • Complete and sign action plan • Review next steps and time frame • Provide referral information • Establish follow-up procedures

33. Ohio Electric Partnership Education Materials • Education note cards • Reports generated by program software • Graph of top ten electric users with annual cost • Action form

34. Ohio Electric Partnership Barriers • OEE ordered to implement program in 6 months • Limited OEE staff • Auditors adjustment to PDA • Perception of PIPP customers • Education training could not be scheduled immediately

35. Ohio Electric Partnership Observation Findings • Visit introduction • Many auditors introduce themselves with no description of the program and then meter refrigerator and inspect home • Usage data • Auditors request bill and enter updated usage information into PDA • Most auditors do not explain bill

36. Ohio Electric Partnership Observation Findings • Energy tour • Most auditors do not review biggest electric uses, estimate costs per appliance, or list suggested actions • Action plan • Most auditors do not use action reports

37. Ohio Electric Partnership Observation Findings • Conclusion • Most auditors do not • Secure action commitment • Reinforce partnership agreement • Explain next steps of program

38. Ohio Electric PartnershipClient Interview Findings • Understanding of the Program

39. Ohio Electric PartnershipClient Interview Findings • Customer Motivation

40. Ohio Electric PartnershipClient Interview Findings • Education Provided

41. Ohio Electric PartnershipClient Interview Findings • Recall of Energy Saving Actions

42. Ohio Electric PartnershipClient Interview Findings • Percent with actions expected to reduce energy use

43. Ohio Electric PartnershipClient Interview Findings • Reduced End Uses

44. Ohio Electric PartnershipSummary • Well-developed education protocols • Excellent education materials • Many barriers to implementation • Auditors not focused on action plans • Education not tailored to individual client • More recent client interviews show better results

45. Utility ProgramProgram Background • Comprehensive usage reduction program managed by an electric and gas utility • Addresses electric and gas usage • Provide appliance replacement and weatherization services • Providers are community action agencies and private contractors • Four energy coordinators oversee work of agencies and contractors

46. Utility ProgramProgram Background • Services are targeted to non public assistance, low-income, payment troubled, LIHEAP-recipient customers • Four types of energy services • Appliance Efficiency Program (AEP): Refrigerator and/or freezer replacement, waterbed mattress replacement, fuel switching • Weatherization Program: heating system service and repairs, air sealing, duct sealing, insulation • Combination: AEP and Weatherization • Modified: Inspection for AEP or Weatherization but no additional treatment

47. Utility Program Education Protocols • Energy Use Management Education • Workshop or education packet with worksheets and video • Customers complete energy services questionnaire and are targeted into programs based on their usage • Contractors provide additional education when performing tests and installing measures

48. Utility Program Education Protocols • In-home Education • Include the customer • Tailor the inspection to the customer’s needs • Identify incentives (increased comfort and lower cost) • Provide reinforcing confidence • Initiate and develop an action plan

49. Utility ProgramEducation Materials • Hot water temperature card • “Cost of Operating Home Appliances” brochure • Sheets on major energy users • Home heating and cooling • Home water heating • Kitchen energy use • Electric home appliances • Home lighting • Laundry energy use

50. Utility ProgramEducation Materials • Energy Savings Action Plan